Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

• Forgot your password?
• Apply for membership

1. • CommentRowNumber1.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeApr 29th 2014
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI have split off the section on _[[points-to-pieces transform]]_ from _[[cohesive topos]]_ and expanded slightly, pointing also to _[[comparison map between algebraic and topological K-theory]]_

   I have split off the section on points-to-pieces transform from cohesive topos and expanded slightly, pointing also to comparison map between algebraic and topological K-theory

2. • CommentRowNumber2.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeFeb 2nd 2015
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI have added to the Examples a section _[Bundle equivalence and concordance](http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/points-to-pieces+transform#BundleEquivalenceAndConcordance)_ with a quick note on how the points-to-pieces-transform applied to an internal hom of the form $[X,\mathbf{B}G]$ gives the canonical map from $G$-principal bundles with equivalences between them to $G$-principal bundles with concordances between them.

   I have added to the Examples a section Bundle equivalence and concordance with a quick note on how the points-to-pieces-transform applied to an internal hom of the form $[X,\mathbf{B}G]$ gives the canonical map from $G$-principal bundles with equivalences between them to $G$-principal bundles with concordances between them.

3. • CommentRowNumber3.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeFeb 27th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI noticed that at _[[points-to-pieces transform]]_ there had been no mentioning of its incarnation in [[global equivariant homotopy theory]]; so I went and briefly added a pointer: [here](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/points-to-pieces+transform#InGlobalEquivariantHomotopyTheory)

   I noticed that at points-to-pieces transform there had been no mentioning of its incarnation in global equivariant homotopy theory; so I went and briefly added a pointer: here

4. • CommentRowNumber4.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJun 12th 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexadded mentioning of the condition "pieces have points" and made that phrase a redirect <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/points-to-pieces+transform/6">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/points-to-pieces+transform/6">v6</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/points-to-pieces+transform">current</a>

   added mentioning of the condition “pieces have points” and made that phrase a redirect

   diff, v6, current

5. • CommentRowNumber5.
   • CommentAuthorUrs
   • CommentTimeJun 22nd 2018
   • PermaLink
   Author: Urs
   Format: MarkdownItexI had some trouble remembering, or making Google remember, where we recorded that "pieces have points" is equivalent to "discrete objects are concrete". I have now made a brief remark on that [here](https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/points-to-pieces+transform#PiecesHavePointsIfDiscreteObjectsAreConcrete), where this is more likely to be found (hopefully). I'll want to turn this into a more comprehensive and polished discussion, but no time right now. <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/diff/points-to-pieces+transform/7">diff</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/revision/points-to-pieces+transform/7">v7</a>, <a href="https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/points-to-pieces+transform">current</a>

   I had some trouble remembering, or making Google remember, where we recorded that “pieces have points” is equivalent to “discrete objects are concrete”.

   I have now made a brief remark on that here, where this is more likely to be found (hopefully). I’ll want to turn this into a more comprehensive and polished discussion, but no time right now.

   diff, v7, current